Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 05 March 07 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Kudos to Czello for correctly reverting the WP:BADNAC.

While a few of the !votes here can be discarded (based on their reasoning, not on the editor's tenure), we're still left with some strong arguments on both sides, fairly evenly divided. The broad participation in this AfD suggests there's not much point to another relisting right now. Hopefully by the time the article is eligible for another AfD, new sources will make that unnecessary. Owen× ☎ 11:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Cahill[edit]

Josh Cahill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So, this article was made years ago by someone who is blocked for paid editing, and there's been numerous suspected COI incidents over years.

I'm probably one of the most inclusionist editors on this website, and frankly, I cannot see any indicators of notability for this guy at all. Almost all the sources aren't about him, they're about the airline. He seems to just be a provocateur who bullies airlines for clicks. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Internet, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Mostly covered in non-RS, or iffy reliable sources. These are about the best I could find [1] and [2]. Daily Dot isn't terribly reliable (mid-level reliability) per our lists. Bangkok Post, I'm unsure... No coverage in anything we'd use as a solid RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: As per prop and per @Oaktree b.
The only sources that come close to RS were the Freie Presse (FP) articles, but those have been killed along with their archives, and it still wouldn't get it close to the notability finish line. More specifically, those seemed to be human-interest stories leaning heavily towards WP:1E.
The sources found by Oaktree b also seem to be in WP:1E territory, in addition to them being of the "random person had bad experience" caliber that seems to be popular by some outlets nowadays and often uses social media as a source.
More formally, I see issues with regard to the following guidelines (keeping in mind WP:V and WP:NEXIST):
And while not a formal guideline, it meets pretty much all of the observations in WP:NYOUTUBER.
I'd even go as far as to recommend OS deletion as a courtesy to the subject, seeing as they've gone through some length to keep their legal name from wikipedia.ConcurrentState (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also noteworthy that the article never has been existed on German language Wikipedia even though they are German. Killarnee (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that this is noteworthy at all, given that the titles of the videos listed for his Youtube channel all seem to be in English, and that neither the article being discussed nor anything I've read about him suggests that he reviews or does anything else of note in German. -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm seeing a lot of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT in these deletion rationales. We can all have our opinions about Josh's clickbait "journalism" and the confirmed COI editing of the article, but for better or worse, he is quite successful at making headlines and a casual trawl of Google News finds plenty of WP:RS including Bangkok Post [3], South China Morning Post [4], New Indian [5], AsiaOne [6], news.com.au [7], etc. All these articles are examples of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus meet WP:GNG, and they cover different incidents, so its not WP:1E either. I also disagree with ConcurrentState's rationale above: the fact that the online copies of reliable sources (Freie Presse) have been removed does not make those sources unreliable, much less have any impact on the subject's notability. Jpatokal (talk) 05:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that they refer to him as a "german vlogger" and not by name is more than enough evidence of a complete lack of general notability. Look at the content of the articles in question. That isn't an establishment of notability, that's basic routine coverage of random incidents that happen, posted on the internet. My name shows up in a few articles. I'm not notable though. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the articles I linked are about Josh Cahill, refer to him by name, and pass the WP:GNG test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Jpatokal (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll clarify, the "titles" don't refer to him by name, and instead they refer to him as a "german vlogger", before later giving his name, after outlining the controversy with the airline. That's an indicator of a lack of notability. Notable people are recognizable by name. Take any notable youtube/streamer, their names/alias appear in article titles about them, or precluded by their profession. asmongold hikaru
    It's frankly WP:ROUTINE coverage of controversy. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your title theory is unsupported by the actual guidelines at WP:GNG, and you're also misapplying WP:ROUTINE: if these events were routine, they wouldn't be getting dedicated articles in major newspapers. Jpatokal (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the coverage is about the controversies, and doesn't establish his notability as a person. For a person already notable, that information might be of encyclopedic interest.
    Even should we accept your premise, WP:GNG is just a guideline. It's not a guarantee of notability. If these events were all standalone, we would be questioning whether or not they were notable as single events (and therefore whether or not WP:1E could even apply). As concurrent put it above, it's the "random person had bad experience" cruft that gets thrown out on slow news days. From WP:ROUTINE:

    Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable.

    DarmaniLink (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the titles of some of the articles referenced above:
    • Bangkok Post: "Vlogger faces backlash"
    • SCMP: "German vlogger gets death threat over critical review of Singapore Airlines"
    • New Indian: "India’s Vistara Hits Back At German Vlogger Over Roster Accusations, Malpractices"
    • news.com.au: "Travel blogger ‘bullied’ by airline after posting mid-flight bad review"
    • AsiaOne: "Foreign travel vlogger considers Singapore Airlines cabin crew a 'letdown'"
    What's the one thing in common here? That's right, Josh Cahill, who is the primary subject of all these articles, and getting death threats for posting bad reviews is hardly a "common, everyday, ordinary item". On the other side of the coin, having bad service on an airline is indeed common and everyday, but AsiaOne is writing about it because Josh is notable enough that his opinions carry weight. Jpatokal (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone getting death threats due to reviews posted on the internet absolutely is an every day item. [8][9][10] Also, I'll retract what I said earlier about the titles, after reviewing WP:HEADLINES. We shouldn't pay headlines any weight at all, and we should instead take into account the content of articles. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for acknowledging that you were wrong, and indeed, let's look at the content. To repeat myself, all the articles I linked are about Josh Cahill, refer to him by name, and pass the WP:GNG test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
    I'm also looking forward to your AFD of Keith Lee (food critic), one of your death threat recipients and also apparently somebody notable enough for Wikipedia :) Jpatokal (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of repeating myself and us moving in circles again, the articles are not about Josh Cahil per se, they about the airline and its treatment of a passenger. As mentioned previously, it is routine coverage, with JC not as the subject but as the customer of the airline.
    Reviewing any of your examples shows that it isn't about JC, it's about the airline, and its treatment of a passenger.
    Also, Keith Lee has tons of coverage about him as a person, which push him just over the finish line for notability.[11][12]etc. He gets daily coverage about every restaurant he tries and leaves a review at, good or bad. JC gets mentioned secondary in an article as the """victim""" whenever its something that the airline did. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Notable people are recognizable by name." There are degrees of recognizability and of notability. Few periodicals writing about Mick Jagger would think it better to title the article to include "musician Mick Jagger"; the Manfreds weren't as big as the Stones, so Paul Jones is likely to get a quick and simple description. So those recognizable by name are notable (or mere celebs), but plenty of people not immediately recognizable by name are also notable. -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Keep. Whether you like him or not but the article seems to be relevant. If you compare his page views to the only other "aviation vlogger" here, Sam Chui, Cahill seems to be way more relevant in search traffic, which means users are interested in the subject. This source seems relevant by Corriere.it. - a rather dedicated interview. However, seeing all the edit wars and the name issue, it's probably better to have it deleted, also in his interest... but saying "He seems to just be a provocateur who bullies airlines for clicks." is not a neutral kinda view and as @Jpatokal already mentioned WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT - just my opinion. — Partisan321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Sock !vote struck. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC) noting for clerical reasons, strike was previously removed by User:Jpatokal in Special:Diff/1211283295, Restored by User:DarmaniLink[reply]
  • Comment It's worth mentioning, the page mentioned by the account who made his first edit on this AFD (welcome!), Sam Chui was created by the same editor who did paid editing (User:VirenRaval89) in diff Special:Diff/950683366 (then subsequently edited by an IP with the exact same edit summaries), a few months prior to making this article up for deletion Special:Diff/982826878. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to venture into WP:PA w/r/t the new account (and will address their arguments on their merits soon after), but I'd be remiss not to point out that I'm getting some strong quack deja vus when seeing their misapplication of and emphasis on the neutrality principles of Wikipedia. It's very reminiscent of the talking points about neutrality and bias on the article talk page. Some examples that come to mind are here[13], here[14], here[15] and here[16].
    Edit: I see that @Vanamonde93 has closed the SPI in the meantime, would it be bad form to ask them to consider keeping it open until the AfD has concluded? ConcurrentState (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This should probably go on ANI with a link to the SPI. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Keep’’’ One of the most famous Aviation YouTubers. — 92.16.239.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Hi! I see this is your first ever edit, that isn't a policy based argument. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm coming down on the side of delete. I looked at the links Jpatokal shared and I was in two minds, but I just feel that each of the articles is more about an airline's notable behaviour toward a passenger, not coverage the person as notable. Mgp28 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the reason that behavior is notable is because it happened to somebody who is notable. I don't have newspapers writing about me when I get denied entry to a lounge or dislike the onboard catering, nor do I get death threats if I complain about either on my blog. But if you want WP:RS about Josh himself, here's a dedicated profile/interview by Corriere della Serra, one of Italy's largest newspapers: https://www.corriere.it/economia/consumi/24_febbraio_18/josh-il-blogger-che-recensisce-e-fa-arrabbiare-le-compagnie-aree-controllo-anche-i-bagni-6af8dd9b-9052-4f90-b875-acb74f08cxlk.shtml Jpatokal (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that poor behaviour by companies is only reported on if the recipient is notable. Newsapers are full of reports of people being mistreated. I think they would argue there is a strong public interest to report on such things that affect us all. The Corriere profile is more compelling. I couldn't see any indication that this was paid for, so it seems a reporter has sat down and interviewed the subject and an editor has chosen to give some space for the interview. This is just tipping me into a weak keep. Mgp28 (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, trying to establish notability with a single interview is why WP:SIGCOV of the subject per se is required. One interview falls under WP:BLP1E, more is required to establish notability. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I was unclear. I did not mean that this interview in isolation constituted significant coverage.
    (Also to note, I didn't find WP:BLP1E helped me form a judgement for this article. There is no single event that Josh Cahill seems famous for, and the interview doesn't appear to have been triggered by any one event -- it discusses his work over a seven-year period.)
    Rather, I started with the links Jpatokal originally shared and did not feel these were sufficient. The available first paragraphs from the Freie Presse articles cited in the article seemed promising but I couldn't read the whole articles. Other links shared on this page still didn't convince me. From the position of having read those articles, the Corriere profile tipped the balance such that I now, albeit weakly, feel that there is sufficient, significant, reliable, independent coverage that I feel we should keep the article. Mgp28 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Agreeing with the above !votes; I would say keep since the subject meets notability guidelines, but the editors who pointed out that these news stories are routine motivated me to !vote delete since the subject doesn't fully meets notbility guidelines. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 07:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the same as above. Much of the content and news articles seems quite trivial. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jpatokal. There are plenty more, similar write-ups: "Aero Dili Criticized After Posting Aviation YouTuber's Passport Online in Revenge Against Negative Flight Review", "Qatar Airways Under Fire For Banning Aviation YouTuber Josh Cahill", "YouTuber says Qatar Airways banned him from flying with them ever again because he left a bad review", "Airline Posts Passport of Popular Airline YouTuber Publicly Online in ‘Revenge’ For Negative Flight Review", etc. Each is indeed more about the airline than about our subject, and the gist of each review could instead have been published on TripAdvisor or similar. But news outlets choose to write about Cahill's experiences, and about what he does, rather than about your experiences or mine, because he's energetic, articulate and conspicuous. (You may be too. I'm not.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep these mid-sized YouTubers almost all fall under this weird on-the-fence area of notability. Whether they are notable lies nearly entirely on personal interpretations of WP:GNG. My personal interpretation, taken in conjunction with the sources already cited in this article, leads me to lean toward keep. The sources are all marginal, but the quantity of marginally acceptable sources holds some weight, in my opinion. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 16:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on "He seems to just be a provocateur who bullies airlines for clicks" within the nomination: If this is being proposed as a deletion argument, then it's a worthless one (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT); but worse than this, it seems to me to infringe WP:BLPTALK. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added "it seems" in front to make it explicit that it is an opinion. :)
    Poor form? Sure, I'll admit that, and I'll voluntarily strike that out. However, the rest of the argument that the coverage is trivial/routine, and about the airlines rather than the individual, which you agreed with me on in your above !vote, still stands. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for striking it out. In my so-called "!vote", I described what I'd linked to as primarily about the airlines rather than about Cahill. But this wasn't a description of all the links provided so far. Indeed, User:Jpatokal has just now provided a little list of links whose titles suggest that they're primarily about Cahill. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:TNT. Right now this just shows an ordinary person, and the controversies are most of the article. If the topic is notable, it needs to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Analysis of the sources

    Josh Cahill has received significant coverage in publications from nine countries:

    1. Canada: Toronto Star
    2. India: The Siasat Daily
    3. Italy: Corriere della Sera
    4. Germany: Freie Presse
    5. Singapore: Today
    6. South Africa: Daily News
    7. Thailand: Bangkok Post
    8. Tunisia: Nessma El Jadida
    9. United States: indy100
    Josh Cahill received significant coverage in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024.

    When a person has received such sustained international coverage, it is clear he does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event.

    Sources

    1. Quan, Douglas (2020-09-20). "Aviation geeks resume their flights of fancy". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "German-born vlogger Josh Cahill, who boasts more than 320,000 YouTube subscribers and has a reputation for unvarnished critiques, recently sparked what he called a "little revolution" after posting a video in which he showed an unkempt VIP lounge at Tunisia's airport and gave a scathing review of his Tunisair flight to Paris. He described the plane as "absolutely filthy," mocked the contents of the meal box ("Who eats muffins with cheese?") and questioned why in-flight magazines were offered when they could've been touched by multiple hands. ... Since starting his channel in early 2018, Cahill, who speaks fondly of his first airplane ride as a youngster in 1991 aboard an L-1011 TriStar belonging to the former German carrier LTU, has developed a bit of a reputation as a rabble-rouser. His no-holds-barred reviews have gotten underneath the skin of more than one airline and even generated international headlines."

    2. Berberi, Leonard (2024-02-18). "Josh Cahill, il blogger che recensisce (e fa arrabbiare) le compagnie aeree: «Controllo anche i bagni»" [Josh Cahill, the blogger who reviews (and angers) airlines: «I also check the bathrooms»]. Corriere della Sera (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "If there's a plane to avoid, he definitely gets on board. ... All documented with videos, published on his YouTube channel, seen by millions of people. For seven years Josh Cahill, a 37-year-old German-Australian who has lived in China and is now based in Sri Lanka, has been a "critic" of flights in every aspect. Bathrooms included. And, always as a critic, he does not hesitate to take risks. He including arguing with one of the most powerful airlines in the world, Qatar Airways. Angering another carrier, Aero Dili (based in East Timor), who out of spite published his passport. And denounce those who show videos that are actually promotions - undeclared - on behalf of the carriers. «I try to be the Robin Hood of aviation», he tells the Corriere during a chat."

    3. Vollmer, Bernelee (2024-02-05). "Watch: South African Airlink faces backlash as popular YouTuber review reveals 'terrible' service". Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05 – via MSN.com.

      The article notes: "Josh Cahill, renowned for his candid airline reviews, recently offered a behind-the-scenes glimpse into his encounter with the South African carrier, Airlink, and it doesn't bode well. With a career built on scrutinizing airlines, Cahill has an impressive record of travelling on 185 different airlines over 650 flights in the last six years. About a month ago, the YouTuber found himself reportedly banned by Qatar Airways following a negative review of the Doha-based airline."

    4. Fatima, Sakina (2023-12-27). "YouTuber banned from flying Qatar Airways for negative review". The Siasat Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes: "A popular aviation YouTuber was banned from flying with Qatar Airways after he posted a negative review. Josh Cahill, who has 658,000 subscribers on YouTube, posted the video “THE SHOCKING DECLINE OF QATAR AIRWAYS” on August 26 following a flight from Colombo, Sri Lanka to London Heathrow with a connection in Doha. Cahill, a seasoned airline reviewer, has taken over 650 flights with 185 airlines over the past six years, regularly sharing his experiences on YouTube and Facebook."

    5. "Vlogger faces backlash for negative review of Singapore Airlines". Bangkok Post. 2020-01-17. Archived from the original on 2023-12-26. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes: "Josh Cahill, who started posting videos of airline reviews in January 2018 on his YouTube channel of the same name, told TODAY that despite previously posting more critical reviews of other airlines, this is the first time he has received such "intense" criticism, which he said is aggressive and threatening. The 33-year-old went to the police for advice but stopped short of making a police report as it was difficult to track down the account holders without a name or proper profile."

    6. Märkisch, Denise (2020-06-19). "Reiseblogger muss auf dem Boden bleiben" [Travel bloggers have to stay grounded]. Freie Presse (in German). Archived from the original on 2023-04-08. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes: "Josh Cahill fliegt eigentlich um die ganze Welt. Heute Asien, morgen Amerika. Doch auch der Mildenauer darf nicht reisen. Was macht er also derzeit und hat er schon den nächsten Flug gebucht? Wenn Josh Cahill unterwegs ist, teilt er seine Erfahrungen mit vielen anderen Reisebegeisterten. Allein seinen Youtube-Kanal haben mehr als 278.000 Menschen in der ganzen Welt abonniert. Seine Videos werden millionenfach angeschaut. Seit Jahren lebt der Mildenauer ein Nomadenleben. Anfang des Jahres besuchte er Australien, Fiji,..."

      From Google Translate: "Josh Cahill actually flies around the world. Asia today, America tomorrow. But the Mildenauer is not allowed to travel either. So what is he doing at the moment and has he already booked the next flight? When Josh Cahill travels, he shares his experiences with many other travel enthusiasts. More than 278,000 people around the world have subscribed to his YouTube channel alone. His videos are viewed millions of times. The Mildenauer has been living a nomadic life for years. At the beginning of the year he visited Australia, Fiji, ..."

    7. Ong, Justin (2020-01-16). "Airline vlogger faces backlash, including a death threat, for his negative review of Singapore Airlines". Today. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes: "Mr Josh Cahill, who started posting videos of airline reviews in January 2018 on his YouTube channel of the same name, told TODAY that despite previously posting more critical reviews of other airlines, this is the first time he has received such “intense” criticism, which he said is aggressive and threatening. ... Mr Cahill is currently travelling across Vietnam, reviewing airlines in the region."

    8. Evans, Greg (2018-11-22). "Man leaves bad review of airline during flight and it only made things worse". indy100. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes: "For some reason that's exactly what travel vlogger Josh Cahill did during a recent flight with Malaysia Airlines, from Kuala Lumpur to London. Cahill has a big following on YouTube and Instagram and has according to him has flown with Malaysia Airlines before. ... Cahill flies around 150 times each year obviously knows a thing or two about what makes a good flight and although the staff acted unprofessionally he'll perhaps think twice the next time he is compelled to post a bad review during a flight."

    9. "اليوتيوبر الألماني Josh Cahill في رحلة ثانية على التونسيار : كارثية وإحراج وطني (فيديو)" [German YouTuber "Josh Cahill" on a second trip on the Tunisian: a disaster and a national embarrassment (video)] (in Arabic). Nessma El Jadida. 2021-08-10. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "The YouTuber, who is followed by nearly half a million people around the world, said yesterday, Monday, August 9, 2021, in a video clip in which he criticised the services on Tunisian Airlines, that the services have not improved a year after his first evaluation in August 2020, indicating that the company is considered a national embarrassment to Tunisians and is the most disgusting and disastrous trip he has ever taken"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Josh Cahill to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to WP:RS than if an outlet it WP:REPUTABLE. Looking at the specific article that is to be used as an RS is just as important. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:RSEDITORIAL some of the things to keep in mind, as well other RS-related guidelines. Similarly, WP:BASIC and stuff like WP:GNG isn't as straightforward as presented. Specifically WP:BASIC states:

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. * If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. * Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
— WP:BASIC

This means that at best a presumption is created (same applies forWP:GNG), but there are also exclusionary criteria in WP:NOT. You did bring some good sources, however. No. 1 is genuinely great and might be the best one I've seen so far. No. 2 seems pretty good as well. No. 6 might've been great if it still existed. The archive link doesn't provide enough access to properly asses it, and it has been removed from the FP's website. I was unable to locate it in the e-paper archives of FP, which suggests it never made it to a hard copy. But if you could take a look as well with the same tools you used for No. 1, that would be great. No. 8 seems to be from an outlet that some editors are uncomfortable with, per the perennial list in WP:RSPSS. I'm not familiar with that outlet, so I can't say either way if it's reliable or not. The rest (i.e., 3-5, 7,9) have the issues mentioned elsewhere, where it seems the airline is the topic. There's also the issue that they don't seem to be intellectually independent as required under WP:BASIC and instead derivatives of the primary source, that being Cahill's own videos (which has WP:BLPSELFPUB implications). The note in WP:BASIC clarifies intellectual independence as such:

Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing their notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

Circling back to WP:NOT I see some issues with regard to WP:NOTNEWS (2nd clause) and WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Either way, it's going to be pretty challenging to create a BLP article that meets WP:BLP and MOS:BLP with the small number of reliable sources currently available, especially if we're aiming for more than a stub. Which will probably lead to future AfDs. So for now I maintain my recommendation to delete, it seems it's just WP:TOOSOON and that Cahill's contributions are better served on the individual airline articles. That said, if we do end up keeping it, then I strongly support @Bearian's suggestion to start from scratch. ConcurrentState (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I have pasted this from talk page per edit request GrayStorm(Talk|Contributions) 03:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the sources.

Sources

You did bring some good sources, however. No. 1 is genuinely great and might be the best one I've seen so far. No. 2 seems pretty good as well. – two good sources is sufficient for a topic to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

WP:NOTNEWS

WP:NOTNEWS redirects to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The section says Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not and lists four items. I reviewed each item to demonstrate that this article does not violate the policy:

  1. Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. – this article is not "original reporting" on a "breaking story". It is about a YouTuber.
  2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. – the article is not a news report. Enduring notability has been shown through sources about the subject that were published in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024 in publications based in nine countries.
  3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. – the sources do not cover Josh Cahill only in the context of one event.
  4. Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. – this article is not about "celebrity gossip" or "all events [he is] involved in".
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Since the topic does not violate WP:NOT, there is no policy-based reason to exclude a subject with at least two good sources from having an article.

Starting the article from scratch

the controversies are most of the article. If the topic is notable, it needs to be started from scratch. – the article is not so poorly written that "it needs to be started from scratch". To address concerns about controversies forming most of the article, here are three options:

  1. The "Incidents" section can be removed.
  2. The "Incidents" section can be trimmed.
  3. The article can be expanded so that the "Incidents" section no longer forms slightly over half of the article.
None of these options requires deletion of the entire article. Aside from the "Incidents" section, I consider the rest of the article to be perfectly fine in being well-sourced, due weight, and neutral.

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.

Cunard (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources presented by Cunard as to whether they provide significant coverage of the person, rather than of the airline or of vlogging in general, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Cunard has helpfully listed, there's plenty of WP:RS attesting to WP:GNG, and the counterarguments are getting increasingly implausible: if anything, it's WP:TENDENTIOUS how they keep changing (need more RS → OK there's RS but they're actually talking about airlines, not Josh → OK they're covering Josh but they shouldn't be because it's all routine stuff → well maybe death threats aren't routine but here's this other guy who got a death threat and isn't notable → well OK so Italy's largest newspaper did a profile 100% about Josh but one source isn't enough → OK Toronto Star did one too but BLP something something so let's just delete anyway) Sure, the article needs work, but that's an entirely different issue and now we have tons of solid material to work with. Jpatokal (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those things are true.
We need more reliable sources. The sources are about the airline and a controversy around it, not josh, and it's WP:TRIVIAL, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:MILL coverage, save for the interviews, which cover vlogging and do not establish general notability. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the bolded !vote -- you already made it further up. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're proving my point here. Where's the policy stating that vloggers are excluded from WP:GNG? Jpatokal (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strawmen arguments reflect extremely poorly on you. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said, and I quote, "the interviews, which cover vlogging and do not establish general notability". I genuinely interpreted this as a claim that vloggers/vlogging is not notable, but if this is not what you meant, then what did you mean? Jpatokal (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DarmaniLink ⬆️ Jpatokal (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll put aside my total distaste for Josh Cahill. I'll also put aside the resentment I feel that Wikipedia is increasingly including people who according to my gut, just do not belong in an encyclopaedia. I have to go with what our guidelines say. Per the excellent analysis by Cunard, when applying the general notability guideline to the coverage of the subject, it is rather irrefutable that Josh Cahill meets the standard of notability for inclusion. Do I like that the coverage out there of an airline blogger is sufficient to justify an article? Not really. But this is not about what I or anyone else likes. It's about whether or not the article subject meets our relatively low bar of biography notability. He does. Therefore, the article should not be deleted — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. Though I agree that the subject does not feel notable, I believe it has been thoroughly demonstrated that it does pass WP:GNG. popodameron ⁠talk 00:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I watch Josh Cahill on youtube, after reading all of the arguments to delete or keep, I am of the opinion that it fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 12:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As user MaxnaCarta explained succinctly above, our job here is to separate our personal feelings on the subject from the amount of information out there (based on reliable sources). While he is clearly not someone you would see in an encyclopedia twenty years ago, he has clearly amassed influence (and coverage) through his social media reach. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Run District[edit]

Cedar Run District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable eventschool district. The only sources I've found were only county-level; it doesn't seem to be known elsewhere. Flux55 (my talk page) 22:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Velaro, Inc.[edit]

Velaro, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this article serves no significance and most likely should be treated as not notable. however if it's expanded and sourced well then the deletion is not necessary it's just that I have not found any independent articles regarding this company yet. If I am wrong then please let me know why ‍ Tom Joe James 📝 💬 Wanna talk? | 📝 Contributions 18:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article does not qualify for soft-deletion, as PROD was once declined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep‎

Marsification[edit]

Marsification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is primarily definitional (noting WP:NOTDICT) for a neologism. The original intended meaning is published by a source that isn't reliable; reliable sources (BBC and New Scientist) have then used the term in a different sense. So, there is no coherent topic, and no clear merge destination. Klbrain (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: new references found establish notability of the topic. Klbrain (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d love to hear more from the editor who flagged this for deletion. They say that there is some dissonance between the original source and the independent media coverage. I’m confused by that interpretation because it seems clear that these two credible news sources – the BBC and New Scientist are not using the term in a different way. They are reporting on the neologism and marking it as a significant new word which seems to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. Additional references and citations were added to improve the page, and to further clarify the coherence of the topic. Cavalucciomarino (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to. It looks like that page has been signficiantly improved by you since I placed the tags. In the version at that time it's described as a that word arose from as an ourput of the Bureau of Linguistical Reality, whose primary definition on the page is "various cultural, political and economic processes through which techno-utopian fantasies divert our attention from the dominant global economic system's erosion of the life-support systems of Earth". They include other definitions, or potential meanings. The BBC article says that "which describes the expansion of colonial ideas to other planets". So, while the primary definitions relates to environmental issues on earth, the BBC article sees it as having a focus on colonial expansion. It still seems to be a campaigning piece rather than a work, but that's fine content too. Happy to change my view on this one. Klbrain (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ferrellgas. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rhino[edit]

Blue Rhino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced with no other suggestion of notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wholly verified and thereby failing the notability guideline. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore long-standing redirect to Ferrellgas, (which appears to be the parent company) since there is sourced information about Blue Rhino there. Left guide (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per User:Left guide, no significant coverage found per WP:NCCORP, and nothing here worth merging. Parent company article has similar problems of WP:OR and an overall tone of WP:COI. Wikishovel (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Left guide, and if appropriate, add pertinent and citable information from this article to the appropriate section of Ferrellgas. Thanks to all for their contributions and let's discuss further as needed. KConWiki (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sourcing has been improved, but the consensus remains that this list doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jain billionaires[edit]

List of Jain billionaires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the references so far don't verify that the people listed are both Jains and billionaires, but as User:Fram noted when moving this to draft, it's unclear how the intersection of religion and wealth is in any way encyclopedic enough for a standalone list article. Wikishovel (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Finance, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: List of names, most aren't even sourced. I agree that I don't see what wealth and a particular nationality have in common. I don't even see what classifies as wealthy as no income figures are given. "List of Richest XYZ by income" might have a shot a notability, this is just a list of names in no particular order. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey out of the 20 names, i have referenced 15 to their wikipedia articles and also added source for networth and religion. This is a list of all jain billionaires which i am trying to compile. KRFAAR (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned above, along with the names themselves and the order they're in not being particularly notable, the grouping itself has not been shown to be notable per WP:NLIST. popodameron ⁠talk 21:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, the listing is as per the decreasing order of their networth, but few names have been misplaced. 15/20 have english wikipedia articles under their name too. I have added forbes link for each.. KRFAAR (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added forbes link to everyone's name which shows their billionaire status. And i have also added links to show in which religion they were born. Jains are minority in India and I wanted to compile a list for this community. KRFAAR (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except for everyone with the surname Jain i have added source for their religion. KRFAAR (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So currently i have added forbes link for all the individuals, for 15/20 mentioned here also linked their english wikipedia page, 12/20 have both forbes and jain religion sources, for people with jain surname i have not added specifically because it is obvious. KRFAAR (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So i would like to know what else should i improve inthis article for it to not get deleted, i haveadded a lot of sources for religion and networth KRFAAR (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should i add their company names and designations to make it better?? KRFAAR (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. The list was obviously created in good faith, but sourcing of their being Jains and billionaires was only half of the problem. The other half is whether it's encyclopedic to have a standalone list article on Jain (or Bahá'í, or Zoroastrian) billionaires. As members of a minority religion, a better place to list notable Jain businesspeople would be at List of Jains#Business leaders. Wikishovel (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the issue of having separate article for this? And i did not add billionaires in the notable jain list because it would get buried down there. This separate list would be a better representation. Many communities have such pages, so i was thinking there should not be a problem with a jain list too. I have referenced wikipedia articles, added sources which mention networth and religion too. Don' see a problem here. So i don't understand why deletion KRFAAR (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are many such list like Tamil billionaire, which dont have any source or referenced articles but are still accepted, so i dont see why my list cannot be accepted. KRFAAR (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a lot of context to this article. Just a list of names and looks like a gathering of original research. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not notable in any context, fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 09:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Williams (actor)[edit]

Jeremy Williams (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article describes Williams as "Actor, playwright, poet, model". I cannot find coverage to demonstrate that he meets WP:NACTOR, WP:AUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and only found a photograph and brief text in Gay News. None of the other four references are independent and reliable. Tacyarg (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: As per norm - Does not meet meets WP:NACTOR or WP: GNG. I can't find any significant coverage. No notable films too. Rydex64 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was seemingly moot‎. Long story short, this was created as a userspace sandbox, and the creator eventually changed its contents to be about Skyeskyns before publishing it to mainspace. This was subsequently mistaken for an article hijacking, and was reverted to the band-related content and moved to this title. This has been reversed by Whpq with the rationale "Correction to imprioper move see article talk" (referring to Talk:Skyeskyns#Article hijacking and moving). As noted there, Skyeskyns itself remains (completely separately and unrelatedly to this nomination) up for deletion. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Injuns (band)[edit]

Injuns (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAND. Theroadislong (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chai Khang Chao[edit]

Chai Khang Chao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to tabloid coverage of photos of the leads posing together (and no coverage since mid-2023). Searching online, I was able to find only more of the same, and coverage of the novel that the film is based on, but nothing that would establish the film's notability (or that it is in fact heading toward release), but editors fluent in Thai may have better luck. signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Hormone[edit]

Doctor Hormone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable golden age character no results Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, as opposed to "no results", the preview in Ron Goulart's great history of comic books has coverage on the character on p. 21-23, and there is a 2-page chapter dedicated to him, fittingly, in The League of Regrettable Superheroes. Not sure how much there is in American Comic Book Chronicles: 1940-1944. Daranios (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    American Comic Book Chronicles has a paragraph on the character, including commentary on the character's use of the Ku Klux Klan as villains: "Though down to approximately 30,000 members in 1941 (from a high of 4,000,000 a decade and a half earlier), the Klan and its sympathizers, many of them in positions of prominence, were still dangerous. To call them out as murderers and traitors, even in the pages of a comic book, was brave, perhaps too brave for Dell executives. Dr. Hormone was gone following issue #60, his storyline interrupted mid-cliffhanger." Toughpigs (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ah it's got three sources and is wacky enough, I'd give it a pass on that alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources dont seem to be very indebth and more plot only. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You can view the League of Regrettable Superheroes book here [18] mentioned over a few pages... and a newspaper mention here [19]. Gnews brings up a few mentions when the "Regrettable" book was published about a decade ago. Low-rent Captain America it sounds like. Not to be confused with the actual Doctor Hormone [20]. Oh this made my day! Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second one is just a mention not any WP:SIGCOV. The first one seems to be plot with a few jokes thrown in. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Merge to Dell Comics maybe? Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think the sources just so fullfill the requirements of WP:Notability. As there is no article yet on Popular Comics, a merge target as AtD is somewhat problematic, with Dell Comics or 1940 in comics being possible but not ideal choices. So keeping this based on WP:PAGEDECIDE seems the better option. Daranios (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comic books are at their best as social commentary, and taking on the KKK in the Golden Age was far from a bandwagon thing. Even if the coverage as presented above is on the short side, GNG is met and it looks like there's enough info to create a compelling, if short, encyclopedia article. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Daranios and Jclemens, the coverage is enough for an article and shows notability.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of The A-Team characters#Hunt Stockwell. (although I don't understand "Redirect per nom" as the nominator didn't suggest redirection) Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt Stockwell[edit]

Hunt Stockwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged with notability since 2021. No SIGCOV in the article, and I was unable to find any more in my BEFORE check. It is possible that I just missed something, but I doubt it. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Rich Mullins. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Songs 2 (Rich Mullins album)[edit]

Songs 2 (Rich Mullins album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. Contested WP:BLAR.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rich Mullins: Found no reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rich Mullins#Discography, and then protect the redirect: Subtopics should ideally not be deleted in their entirety, but this article keeps being recreated by one person. Deleting it will probably not deter them. They'll just recreate it, and then we'll just end up back here at AfD. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 21:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rodulfo[edit]

Peter Rodulfo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A semi-promotional article on a visual artist who does not meet inclusion criteria for WP:NARTIST. Seems to be part of a mini-walled garden along with Mark Burrell and North Sea Magical Realists. A before search finds only social media, user-submitted content, blogs and other low quality sources. Netherzone (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burrell[edit]

Mark Burrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG - cannot find any independent reliable sources to establish notability LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Arts. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and England. Skynxnex (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've started to do a WP:BEFORE search and discovered there are two visual artists with the name Mark Burrell: this one, born in 1957 and another one born in 1965. It seems neither are notable, but will hold off on !voting until I finish the BEFORE search, although so far all I am finding is primary sourcing, user-submitted content, and a couple pay-to-play advertorials or native advertising. Netherzone (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am finding no significant RS for this person. The one online citation is to a dead link. I was going to suggest merging into North Sea Magical Realists, but am going to nominate that article for deletion instead. Peter Rodulfo is more of the same poorly cited material. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the 3 interrelated articles 1, 2, 3. the major contributor appears to be the author of the blog that is used as the major source. See their user page under blogs User:Norwikian#Blog Not sure, it is declared on the user page so it isn't UPE, but I think it would fall under conflict of interest. Correct? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject of this article does not meet criteria for notability per WP:NARTIST nor GNG. A "before search" does not find the usual material associated with a notable visual artist. Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brewn'[edit]

Brewn' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any sigcov of the band. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but the article is like an advertisement Drew Stanley (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to clean it up some and remove the advertisement content, but it left very little content and is not notable. I agree that it has not had significant coverage and the article is missing citations. I am a new user, someday I'll write an article (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Feel free to create a Redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Micronet Co., Ltd.[edit]

Micronet Co., Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP - google search failed to find any nontrivial or non-business in depth coverage of the subject. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's no coverage of this company in English-language sources, and no plausible redirect target. There might be Japanese sources, but until someone does that legwork, delete. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found a few English-language sources in that they are reviews or brief mentions of games developed by Micronet and thus have passing mention of the company, but no mention of the company itself. A few Manila-based newspapers seem to mention its subsidiary. Reconrabbit 20:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've done a quick search trying to find references and included them in the article, but it's hard finding things that aren't press releases. It doesn't help that there were contemporary internet/gaming services called "MicroNet" and "MicroNET" that were available around the same time of this company's heyday. Reconrabbit 20:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamco International Insurance Ltd[edit]

Lamco International Insurance Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created as promo, does not appear to meet WP:ORGCRITE. AusLondonder (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Mauritius. AusLondonder (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage to speak of, a search reveals only database entries and the company's own websites and social media. ~ A412 talk! 18:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A longstanding under-sourced article on a firm, with product range and full branch address list, but no claim to notability. Searches find routine listings, confirming a firm going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reeks of promotional tone and highly questionable notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bognor (carmaker)[edit]

Bognor (carmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:N, WP:RS. All dead links or sources which do not support the content (three-wheelers are mentioned, I don't see anything relating to Ladas). Smells somewhat hoaxy.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: - thanks, that one is much better sourced. However, the sources indicate that Bognor is a small enterprise which armors cars for the local market. That does not meet WP:N in my estimation.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a parts manufacturer for the automotive industry, it does not seem notable enough. --149.172.122.230 (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, Bognor had a webpage 17 years ago which makes tantalizing references to the "Diva". Not an RS, but interesting, perhaps. The old homepage is just as informative.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Fly Pro[edit]

Spanish Fly Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. I can't find any significant coverage of it in reliable sources, just lots of paid coverage and advertorial like this and this. Spammy tone and edit history suggest undisclosed paid editing, and an article with the same title was speedy deleted G5 and G11 in 2017, but this article didn't quite seem to meet WP:CSD#G11. Wikishovel (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reeks of paid editing Ominateu (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)(sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nominator and previous commenter that this is clearly an advertisement page created by an undisclosed paid editor. I think it's possible that this product is just barely notable enough that a proper short article could reasonably be created on it, but I don't really see much worth salvaging here.
— Moriwen (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We certainly don't need a PROMO article about a garden variety convenience store item which isn't advised for use by any reputable medical agency and which is likely used for illicit purposes beyond what its labeling depicts. Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sinner–Alcaraz rivalry[edit]

Sinner–Alcaraz rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ROTM coverage could not prove the notability of the topic, i.e. fails WP:GNG. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Tennis. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the references fail WP:GNG in terms of establishing Alcaraz and Sinner as "rivals." These references are routine coverage of their matchups that are no different than it would be for any pair of high-ranking tennis players. I will also note that if this article is kept, which I oppose, the names should be reversed to the standard alphabetical order. Frank Anchor 17:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Wikiproject Tennis: "According to WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries are not inherently notable. We can only have articles about tennis rivalries if there is significant media coverage about the rivalry. For example, great rivalries like Agassi–Sampras or Federer–Nadal warrant an article, but articles about rivalries like Agassi–Rafter and Federer–Hewitt have been deleted by the community. If in doubt, consult WP:TENNIS before creating a new rivalry article." That's what this looks like to me. This is not a player interaction that requires a stand-alone article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and Spain. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross Church, Coonan Cross Mattancherry[edit]

Holy Cross Church, Coonan Cross Mattancherry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability for this recent, small and apparently otherwise unremarakable (or at least not commented on by reliable independent sources) church. Fram (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latigo leather[edit]

Latigo leather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is not a single reliable source to be found for this product. Every source included in the article, and every source to be found in a web search, is an outlet trying to sell this product. It's clear that the product exists and is widely distributed, but I fear that it is impossible to write a neutral, well-sourced article about it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Keep and fix every western saddle on the planet has a latigo. It is probably possible to find sources in older print hardcopy books, though these commercial sites used in the article are actually pretty accurate. This kind of info is sort of oral history and has few sources. Montanabw(talk) 14:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Montanabw: Commercial sites may be accurate, but we have no way of knowing that because their motivation is less to provide accurate information and more to sell goods. The kind of information that is "oral history with few sources" is not really suitable for Wikipedia, based on its requirements for reliable sources. If you can find information in print that is written more from the standpoint of and industrial handbook and not a sales catalog, that would be awesome. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm seeing some perfectly acceptable older sources, like this one.— Moriwen (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Apparently my search did not properly include books that might have been useful. Google books does, in fact, show several promising sources. These should definitely be used in place of the promotional sources currently used. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Coverage [21] and in other sources given here in the AfD. Can build this out past a DICDEF. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And coverage of how it's made here [22] Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I did a search on Google Books and found reference to the production process in several books on "country living" and tanning. I'm certain that all of the information in this article (maybe not on specific weights and vendors, but plenty more relevant to the topic) can be found in Latigo Leather (ISBN 9780823026500). However, I only have a limited preview of it online. There is definitely enough information on this topic to keep it and it has borne mention for more than a century. Reconrabbit 00:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Sky Sports#Premier League. ✗plicit 14:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Football (British TV programme)[edit]

Saturday Night Football (British TV programme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2014 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Video game consoles[edit]

List of Video game consoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are way too many video game consoles for one single list, that's why these are already split across Lists of video game consoles, to which I redirected this (despite the poor capitalisation which may warrant outright deletion). See e.g. List of first generation home video game consoles for the massive number of consoles in that generation alone. Fram (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I'm not sure that this is a bundled nomination as it hasn't been formatted as one. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Women's Bangladesh Premier League[edit]

2025 Women's Bangladesh Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I first nominated this article for WP:PROD deletion with the following rationale:

"None of the three sources confirm the claims in this article, one states that the board is "thinking of launching their BPL" and only confirms that they will do a competition for school girls[23], one talks about an existing three-team tournament, and just states "If we can't start the women's franchise league in the next two seasons of BPL, we will try to do it in the third season."[24], while the final source, from yesterday, is the only one somewhat concrete about these plans, but only says "he possible time of the first season is December this year or January next year." and has no info on the format or the number of teams.[25]

I don't know if the article as written is mostly speculation (which has no place on enwiki then) or based on another source than the ones given (even though the one from yesterday should be up to date), but as it stands the article is not acceptable."

Since then, the article has been ref-bombed but nothing has improved. For example, at the moment the "schedule" section, "Although the day of the tournament is not fully fixed so far, it is expected that, this year may begin late or February to March 2025.", is referenced by [26] which has nothing at all about those dates, and is about school cricket for girls... Fram (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Women's Bangladesh Premier League to this deletion discussion, as it is largely a duplicate of the above, with the same bad sourcing and speculation by the same editor. If an article on the WBPL is wanted, WP:TNT is the way to go. Fram (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Fails WP:GNG, there's nothing of note that's significant coverage, and mostly just waffle on a potential tournament that may or may not happen instead. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON, so there doesn't look to be enough WP:SIGCOV right now (only a lot of speculation about what might happen). Probably not worth moving to draftspace, as the event isn't for 11-12 months, and so in 6 months time, it will likely still be too soon for an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. Consensus to move to draftspace for further improvement. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blast Cats[edit]

Blast Cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable as per WP:GNG. Lacks secondary sources; a WP:BEFORE suggests there is unfortunately not really any coverage on this game to justify an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Haunted PS1 games, has no apparent notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't suggest turning the article into a redirect. A redirect would be messy to clean up and shift back to an independent article when the game is ultimately released and more sources become available/the topic becomes less obscure. Deletion would be better. Ishiura (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming it actually becomes notable, the redirect would provide grounds to expand the article. I don't see how that's a bad thing. (If it's not, that sort of disruptive editing can probably be handled on a user by user basis). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that my having created the article to begin with was disruptive? My reasoning for prefering deletion to a redirect is concern that a technical request would have to be placed in order to deal with the screwy edit history once it was time to set up the standalone article again. If the "Blast Cats"--->"List of Haunted PS1 games" redirect could simply be edited back into a full Blast Cats article once the game gets greater publicity, I would agree that a redirect is the best course to take. Ishiura (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you may be looking for is advocating for a draftify, if you feel there are good grounds for the article to obtain notability in future as a WP:TOOSOON. I created most of these articles, but admit most of the recent HPS1 games haven't really reached a stage of notability upon full release. But there's definitely no harm in exploring AtDs. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftifying is a great idea, but it's unlikely any substantial secondary sources will appear within the 6-month time limit. I'll move the contents of the present Blast Cats article to my userpage sandbox (User:Ishiura/sandbox) Ishiura (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. Yeah, sadly I think this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. I really appreciate you setting up an article for one of the upcoming HPS1 games though, and hopefully if/when it gets reviews it can come back into the mainspace. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify per discussion above. Ishiura has already moved this to their sandbox and this discussion should be closed. Nomader (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more clearer consensus for draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: Per discussion above. The game hasn't released yet so it's possible it'll get some reviews or coverage within the timeframe. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ‎ UtherSRG (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugotheca typica[edit]

Rugotheca typica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find no listing of this species anywhere. Singular source is a dead website. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing - UtherSRG (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typo maybe? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! That's a possibility. There seem to be reasonable refs for it, too. Yeesh.... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shoud be moved to Rugatotheca per as a paleo article (and also monotypic I think). I've done this actually, which is probably jumping the gun, but it's not controversial per WP:NBIOL (species are inherently notable). I'm neutral on what should be done with the now extant redirect at this location. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin N. Fennell[edit]

Justin N. Fennell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable individual. has multiple sources that are supposidly by him or org he founded but that's not entirely true. #3 is not by "Just-In-Time Foundation" It's not titled "Fennell is founder of Just-In-Time Foundation". It's by Matthew Pleasant and it's titled "Nonprofit Moves to Central County Jail, Helps Keep Freed Inmates From Returning". It quotes Fennell as a program's director with The Hope Now Transition Center but the second page is missing from wayback so one can't see if it actuall mentions Just-In-Time Foundation. Regardless, quotes from Fennell are not coverage about Fennell. All the other sources are primary and or listings. The is no sources with any depth of coverage about him in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Sexual violence in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rape of Donetsk People's Republic soldiers by Kadyrovites[edit]

Rape of Donetsk People's Republic soldiers by Kadyrovites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability. WP:NOTNEWS. Can be merged into Sexual violence in the Russian invasion of Ukraine if necessary. Speedied in ruwiki for С5: no evidence of encyclopedic significance. Deleted in ukwiki for NOTNEWS.  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 08:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a brief note to the suggested page. Not significant enough for more than that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzhak Reiter[edit]

Yitzhak Reiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability and lack of references IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but requires improvement as stated above, because he meets notability but the article does not meet our standards FortunateSons (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passing NAUTHOR at the very least. Also AFDISNOTCLEANUP and SNOW. gidonb (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 07:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preston John Hurman[edit]

Preston John Hurman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find any reliable source to why this officer is notable to be included on Wikipedia. The sources included in the article are mostly not reliable or do not exist at all. No decorations .. nothing special about this officer to meet even the general Wikipedia notability policy FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The sources are there, they're just not web ones (or at least most of them are not), i cant see how this fails WP:GNG. And what do you mean by "No decorations"? Please explain further :D begocc questions? 10:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you mean by "No decorations"? Please explain further If he had significant decorations then he could be eligible under WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The additional criteria says that Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included, and same with the opposite. begocc questions? 15:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I was just answering your question about decorations. But he does not appear to be especially notable for anything. Just a man doing his job. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma:.Regarding Sources I think that I am guilty of not adding urls to my sources which I am now in the process of doing.The sources do exist and they are reliable I shall keep working on this page if I am allowed to. Regarding Notability I think that the connections of events and people that he is linked to make the page useful. For instance the details of Prince Emanuel Galitzine travelling to Finland for the Winter war is mentioned in Emanuels' obituary but there is no mention or the photos shown in the Picture Post Magazine which would otherwise be lost to the historical narrative. I have now added a link to the photograph of the story. His mention in dispatches is surely a decoration? His medals are shown in a photo on FindaGrave, I have now added the url. His notable efforts during Operation Husky were singled out for praise in 3 paragraphs in the Book Malta Strikes Back. In the book "Roys Boys" he is mentioned fourteen times. His full story lodged with the Imperial War Museum makes fascinating reading and I think this page should be kept. I love the history of people and particularly those with interesting lives and their connections. MH032 (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Sources already in article are sufficient to satisfy GNG. Nom's claim that they're not reliable is wrong. They're uniformly RS per policy. Nom's claim that some don't exist is unsupported, implausible, and without evidence is a violation of AGF and should be struck out and apologized for. It seems to be based on the fact that many of the sources aren't readily available online, but of course per WP:SOURCEACCESS there's no requirement that they be. Nom should withdraw this ill-considered AfD. Central and Adams (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I honestly can see absolutely no reason whatsoever why this chap is any more notable than any other officer who served in WWII. Just an average bloke who joined the army, served with honour but no especial distinction and then went back to a routine civilian job for the rest of his life. Just like countless thousands of others throughout the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadly nothing notable here. A standard officer who did standard officer things. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place for family memorials. Mccapra (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sourced largely to service records and battle reports/records, rather routine soldier. Interesting biography, not rising to the level needed for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Good officer, did officer things. Interesting bio, but lots of WW2 officers had interesting stories. That doesn't imply GNG. If kept, needs a total rewrite as it reads like a family memorial with elements of a newspaper obituary. Lines like " in her valiant fight against Russia." and "A full and detailed account of 231 Malta Brigade's part in this campaign called "Roys Boys", named after the Brigade Commander Roy Urquart using personal diaries and photographs has recently been published by Christopher Jary and Hurman is mentioned 14 times." are not WP:EPSTYLE. Hemmers (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't think Soft Deletion is appropriate here even though none of the previous AFDs look like they were about this article subject. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schwein[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Schwein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band that only lasted one year. No sources found in English or German. Sources in Japanese linked on the page do not show WP:SIGCOV. Broc (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Editors who believe this article should be Merged or Redirected to Dialogue (group) can propose this on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna Ogata[edit]

Yuna Ogata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm really hesitant to nominate articles for deletion, but after a discussion I just can't see how this person is notable. They don't meet WP:NACTOR since they only seem to have one possibly significant role. They don't meet WP:GNG either; of the cited sources, 1 and 7 are primary sources; 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are insignificant in their coverage and lack any commentary (just reprinting press releases or social media posts at best), and 6 is a tweet, which doesn't count for notability. This person is a member of the notable group Dialogue, but notability is not inherited from being a member of that group. I tried a WP:BEFORE search in English and Japanese but couldn't find anything better than what's already in the article. Redirecting to the aforementioned group is a possible WP:ATD, but I just don't think this person is notable yet. Link20XX (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Anime and manga, and Japan. Link20XX (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator), she meets WP:NMUSIC#6; she is part of Dialogue and Airblue, and while the latter doesn't have an article, it and the former both have releases charting in the Oricon charts ([29]; [30]) and in at least one case had at least one in the Top 10, so they should count as independently notable ensembles under the criterion. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good argument, but I'm still a bit skeptical to call Airblue notable since from my understanding the precedent among Japanese music groups is that those formed around one anime to perform its theme songs usually aren't independently notable like with 3-nen E-gumi Utatan, which was merged by discussion despite having songs chart. Link20XX (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That is also my understanding. Except in very rare cases where a group originally created for an anime ends up having a life of its own outside of its original anime (for example, Sweet Arms, which was originally formed to sing songs for Upotte but is perhaps best known for its involvement with Date A Live), we usually don't create separate articles for this one-time units. Having releases chart on Oricon add notability to Dialogue+, but I don't think it by itself extends to Ogata (or indeed any of the other Dialogue+ members in general). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Link20XX and Narutolovehinata5: When I meant "independently notable ensembles" while factoring in NMUSIC#6, I interpreted it as saying that the ensembles had to be considered independently notable of the members, not to the point of warranting a page. Additionally, chart positions for said ensembles, while they don't directly give automatic notability to all members, should still contribute to their notability with respect to NMUSIC#6 if they have been in another ensemble that meets NMUSIC, regardless of whether or not any of the groups have pages. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Airblue isn't a notable ensemble though as consensus in cases like this (like my aforementioned example) have shown. WP:NMUSIC 10 also implies that groups around just one IP aren't notable, but I admit that I'm not too familiar with the music notability guidelines to make any definitive judgment. Whatever the case, this person does not meet WP:GNG, so I have a hard time justifying keeping the article on possibly barely meeting an SNG. Link20XX (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not delete this article for Yuna Ogata consensus is keep this article okay Lovemuhcko (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lovemuhcko: Please see WP:EVERYONEELSE; we !vote on our own independent volition, not purely on others. Also, I'm pretty sure it's too soon to say there's a consensus since this XFD is barely a day old and there's only one !vote so far: a keep from me (the creator). ミラP@Miraclepine 22:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have nominated the article for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Yuna Ogata, however per DYK rules that nomination is hold pending the result of this discussion. I don't really have a strong opinion either way on Ogata's notability but per my above comments and Link's arguments I'm leaning towards either a delete or a redirect to Dialogue+'s article, whatever the outcome of the discussion is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NMUSIC as part of a notable ensemble with multiple hits and a separate production. Also, while I have not evaluated these since I believe that she has already met the notability threshold per NMUSIC, there are 43 citations provided in the Japanese-language article. DCsansei (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • NMUSIC says that Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability, thus she can't be notable for being part of a single notable band, regardless of how well that band performs. While the Japanese article has a lot of sources, none of them actually count towards notability. Of the sources it cites, five from YouTube (38, 39, 40, 41, 43), eight are from Twitter (9, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31), three are from blogs, wikis, and other social media platforms (19, 30, 34), three are from databases (1, 2, 3), 13 are from official websites or press releases (4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 24, 27, 28, 35, 36, 42), and the remaining are insignificant coverage that only briefly mentions the subject (6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 20, 29, 32, 33). Source 17 is not available online, but seems to be just a simple casting announcement which is also not significant coverage. Link20XX (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:NMUSIC#6 says being a member of two notable ensembles makes one notable. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above, Dialogue+ is notable, but Airblue probably isn't. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, do you suggest a merge to Dialogue+ ? That would lose any information about Airblue, which appears to redirect. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Airblue (group) redirects to Cue! (video game), which already mentions and explains a bit on the topic. I don't think any information about Airblue would be "lost". I would be okay with merging/redirecting to Dialogue (group) as this appears to be the only notable thing she has done. Link20XX (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please do not delete the article was be submitted to did you know article for Yuna Ogata was a consensus for keep the article has she part of Dialogue+. User:Lovemuhcko
    • This AfD has no consensus yet and just because someone nominated the article for DYK doesn't make the subject notable when they weren't before. WP:NBANDMEMBER clearly states a person isn't notable just for being part of one band; the rest of your comment is pretty much begging for mercy, which is not a good argument as to why the subject is notable. Link20XX (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. While the lengthy policy debate here was interesting to read, a cogent source analysis of existing articles sources and those brought up in the discussion would have been more helpful to both a closer and editors coming to this discussion after the first 2 days. Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorah Mormont[edit]

Jorah Mormont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is just another plot summary and should be merged to the list of game of thrones characters. This character isn't important to the plot of the books or movies, and there is no secondary analysis of this character. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... Let's see... TIME, EW, Buzzfeed, Business Insider, Screenrant, Harper's Bazaar, and even JAMA Dermatology. Yeah. That's plenty of coverage for the character. The two "listicles" are all about Jorah, not just ones that include him as an entry. WP:BEFORE is there for a reason, which is in part to make sure that opinions in nominating statements (This character isn't important to the plot of the books or movies, and there is no secondary analysis of this character.) are sanity checked. Keep Please withdraw this and go spend time integrating the sources I found for you into the article. Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. No analysis or reception, just plot summary. No prejudice to seeing this restored if someone at least tries to show notability, but until that happens, fandom/wikia will do just fine, and we can have a redirecto to a list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can? Cross-linking to Wikia/Fandom has been forbidden for well over a decade--when did this change? Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly certain they meant that people who want to read the in-universe information can go to Fandom/Wikia, while we can redirect to a Wikipedia list such as List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. TompaDompa (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination just describes the article as it is now, which is not decisive for the question of deletion according to WP:ARTN. Secondary sources exist to show that this topic is notable, and they directly contradict the nominator's assertion that character isn't important to the plot of the books or movies, and there is no secondary analysis of this character. Aside from the source already listed, Jorah Mormont appears in a number of scholarly sources. E.g. Daenerys Targaryen as Queen Elizabeth I’s Spiritual Daughter compares the character with Francis Walsingham and THE JOURNEY OF DAENERYS TARGARYEN: A HERO ARCHETYPAL ANALYSIS analyzes how he fits into the roles for the Mentor and the Ally from Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey. The WP:BEFORE step of the deletion process should not be skipped! Daranios (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources identified by Jclemens and Daranios. Toughpigs (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nomination is correct that this article currently consists of little more than in-universe information, a violation of both WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTPLOT. WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) thus applies. WP:NOTABILITY is an orthogonal question. There are two principal ways of addressing this problem: redirect/merge to a character list, as was suggested by the nominator, or expand with additional information that would bring this article to an acceptable state. I don't see a case for keeping the article without adding analysis. If such material is not added, redirecting/merging is not only a perfectly cromulent alternative but the appropriate course of action. TompaDompa (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect; notability is the deciding factor in an Articles for Deletion discussion. Check out WP:NEXIST — the current state of the article is immaterial. The thing that decides notability is that sources exist in the world that can be used to improve the article. Toughpigs (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, here you are the one who is wrong. Notability is not in fact the sole deciding factor in AfD discussions; notability is but one of fourteen canonical WP:Reasons for deletion, a list that is explicitly non-exhaustive. Notable topics also do not always receive stand-alone pages but may be covered by articles on related topics (often ones with a broader scope), see WP:PAGEDECIDE. "This is notable" is not an argument for keeping, as opposed to e.g. merging, an article. "This is notable" is also not a counterargument to other arguments for deletion than a lack of notability, which I'm sure you understand—it would be a complete non sequitur to respond to "this violates WP:NOT" with "it is notable". TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then which of those reasons for deletion would you use here? It's not vandalism, it's not a copyright violation, it's not advertising or spam, and it's not a content fork. The relevant reasons are "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". It has been established that reliable sources exist, and therefore it meets the relevant notability guideline. Toughpigs (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I refer you to my original comment. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has not been shown that coverage of this topic in the sources listed is sufficient. Right now the keep votes are saying WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES, without even bothering to quote useful parts of the article, which for all we know mitght be just passing mentions and plot summaries. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted seven; Daranios posted two more. Are you asserting that you are incapable of clicking links, reading them, and making an independent assessment of value? Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with this is that it ignores the advice at WP:DEL If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Editing to incorporate even two of these sources would address the relevant reason for deletion, therefore deletion on the basis of NOT#PLOT is not a legitimate option. This is pretty basic stuff: "this article sucks" may be true but (unlike "this article is unfixable") is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and to expand: the policy is can address, not does address, so it is absolutely not required that any article that can be fixed, actually be fixed in order to survive AfD. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except we don't know if this can be fixed. There is no evidence that any of the cited sources contains useful material. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you are capable of reading and understanding sources, on what epistemological basis would you think we might be unable to deduce that the sources listed above could be used in the article? Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read your own sources, including a listicle of the 28 best faces he made? "when he threw shade on daario" is the longest sentence. Or the other listicle you provided? He is a minor character in a huge series. There is no deeper analysis other than he was a minor romantic foil in a long soap opera. This should be a redirect unless someone has a substantial source. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "This article violates WP:NOT" is canonically a WP:Reason for deletion. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. This is also really besides the point as nobody in this discussion has argued for deletion—what has been suggested is redirecting/merging. TompaDompa (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC; it specifically lists "Delete per WP:NOT" as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Also, yes this is a deletion discussion, see title of page: "Articles for deletion". Toughpigs (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you are mistaken. The essay you refer to suggests that merely asserting that something violates WP:NOT without elaborating further is a non-argument that should be avoided, but it also notes that when the rationale explains how that policy is violated, the argument is valid. Violating that policy is also, as is noted above, one of the canonical reasons for deletion listed in our deletion policy. And while this is indeed an AfD discussion, such discussions do not fall into a keep/delete dichotomy but additionally cover various WP:Alternatives to deletion, such as merging or redirecting. You need only read what has actually been written by the people who disagree with you to see that nobody has advocated for deletion, while some people have advocated for redirecting or merging. TompaDompa (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and on that same policy page, immediately below that section is the discussion about editing to fix an issue being preferable to deletion, which was already addressed above. Do you have any not-yet-rebutted argument to offer? Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Preferable to deletion, which nobody is suggesting. Merging or redirecting, which is what has actually been suggested, is fixing the problem. Or are you suggesting that we should retain flagrant violations of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOT when we have perfectly plausible merge/redirect targets? Would you similarly suggest that we should retain other policy violations, e.g. WP:BLP violations or copyright violations, instead of merging/redirecting? TompaDompa (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So is WP:NOT an argument for deletion, or redirection? If the latter, then we're agreed this AfD can close with no action, right? Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the general case, violating WP:NOT is a canonical WP:Reason for deletion. In this specific case, what has been suggested is an WP:Alternative to deletion, namely merging/redirecting. Surely you know that WP:AfD discussions can be closed in other ways than "keep" or "delete", such as "merge" or "redirect"? If you oppose merging/redirecting as an outcome here, it behooves you to make an argument as to why that would not be a preferable outcome to keeping (or any other outcome, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's easy: He's notable. WP:NEXIST is well documented above. Jclemens (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability does not preclude merging; not all notable topics are best covered at stand-alone articles (WP:NOPAGE). I refuse to believe that you, with multiple years of experience at AfD, are unaware of this. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Preclude? Don't recall saying that it did. But you realize that arguing that an article be redirected, removing it from normal viewing, is viewed as a less positive outcome than allowing it to exist, unredirected, such that it can be improved? Really, I've been poking at the silliness of using NOT to justify the pseudo-deletion of a notable, improvable article. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad content is bad whether it has potential to be improved or not. We can mitigate the badness by redirecting—the content isn't lost and the topic is covered at the proposed target. Of course it would be better to improve the article, but somebody has to actually do so. I'm not volunteering (in this case—as you know I have done so in multiple other cases), and neither are you. Daranios has, which is great, but until they did your position amounted to keeping an article in a 100% policy-violating state indefinitely. TompaDompa (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And two more German secondary sources: Das vergessene Subjekt, p. 298-299 has a page on Mormont (which actually confirms the flippant "when he threw shade on Daario" by BuzzFeed in a more serious way in an academic publication). And Leadership by Game of Thrones, p. 150-153+, has a chapter dedicated to him, of which 3 pages are visible on Google books, the chapter there is ongoing. That should even more clearly push the topic beyond the notability threshold and provide the additional sources Big Money Threepwood has requested. As it has been claimed that keep votes are saying WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES, I want to point out that that specific argument to avoid in a deletion discussion is when there is only a claim that sources are out there without providing them. This has not been the case. As for WP:NOT, I think the better solution to our WP:ALLPLOT problem here is to use the sources which have been found, rather than redirect first and improve later. I have made a bit of a start. Daranios (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Splendid. I agree that improving the article now is preferable to redirecting it and potentially improving it later (which in turn is preferable to keeping it without improvement). TompaDompa (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • And therein lies your fundamental disconnect with policy: WP:WIP. If you would rather see an improvable article turned into a redirect just because someone hasn't made that improvement, you have a perspective incompatible with the original goals of Wikipedia. You're not alone. Many such people have an irrational belief that deleting or redirecting something will cause a better article to be written. While I try not to mock others' religious beliefs, this one really does deserve derision. Not saying that you hold it, mind you, but if you don't... why on earth would you think a redirect is better than an improvable article? Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would rather an outright policy violation be removed than retained, whether that policy be WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, or something else. So should you. This is, in fact, fully in line with Wikipedia's WP:Editing policy, which on the subject of veracity states that a lack of content is better than misleading or false content—the same principle applies to other kinds of major issues. I'm sure you are aware that it is entirely possible for bad content to never be improved. Bad content, whether it be bad because it is WP:Original research, violates WP:NOT, has massive language issues, or something else, is a negative. I'm all for improving content where possible—that's why George Griffith is now a WP:Featured article after the deletion discussion last year—but sometimes improving Wikipedia also means removing the bad stuff. TompaDompa (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good for you. I'm sorry your life is being ordered by those who complain about the current states of articles without lifting a finger to improve articles themselves. Frankly, I worry that such undermines the wisdom of WP:SOFIXIT In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it. by rewarding critics who point out errors they themselves are capable of fixing, yet instead demand that others fix. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • While there are several people in this discussion who have not volunteered to fix the article (I am one of them, and so are you), the only one who has demanded that somebody else fix it is you. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hey y'all, this lengthy conversation is just making it harder for the person who ultimately closes this discussion. I think that everybody has made their points very clearly. I would suggest that we take a step back, let some other people take a look at the page and the sources, and make their own judgments. Toughpigs (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Daranios has saved this article. It now has a reception section. Thank you for your effort. (If someone thinks that section or sources used are inadequate, do ping me, but for now I am willing to AGF this given my experience with Daranios and the fact that we now have several paragraph-long reception). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and Daranios' improvements to the article, with the reception showing the real world importance and notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Opinion is virtually unanimous to Keep this article. And if we Draftified every article that was 100% sourced, then Draft space would be larger than Article space. We don't expect articles to be perfect, just good enough to demonstrate notability. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock[edit]

List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of 14.203.182.49 following several requests at WT:AFD and elsewhere:

This article had sources for citations, but only 60% of the article has citations, which means that 40% of the article has no citations. This article also fails WP:GNG for a stand-alone list.

and

The notice "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists." on that article has been there since May 2017. And nothing has changed for it to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists.

I am neutral (though obviously the main issue is notability—everything else is fixable). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. 220.240.159.127 (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you the same person as the IP address that wanted this nominated? User_talk:Extraordinary_Writ#AFD_Request:_List_of_preserved_Southern_Pacific_Railroad_rolling_stock You make the same argument, and they have limited number of edits, then stop before you started with your few edits. So same person I assume. You can't vote delete here, since nominating it is your delete vote. Only vote once. Dream Focus 05:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It happens by default is why. So yeah. 220.240.159.127 (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Transportation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Got enough blue links to be a valid navigational list. Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists second paragraph. Dream Focus 12:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that the article gets moved to draftspace and can only be let back into the mainspace when the entire list is full of citations. (Meaning that it can only be in the mainspace after it has 100% citations). 220.240.159.127 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to Dream Focus' point, preserved locomotives as a set are unquestionably notable, but a complete list of them would be unmanageably large so we split them up into logical subsets such as this one. A listing of preserved rolling stock of a notable railway company is also a clearly encyclopaedic aspect of the article about that company, but in this case there are too many to include on the main article so this has been spun out to it's own page for ease of navigation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why was there a notice saying that it may not meet notability guidelines on the article. And it’s been up there since May 2017. So that’s why I’m suggesting it should be deleted instead 220.240.159.127 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those tags are almost always completely ignored. The problem back 7 years ago, might not be there now. Dream Focus 05:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I would suggest that the article gets moved to draftspace and can only be let back into the mainspace when the entire list is full of citations. (Meaning that it can only be in the mainspace after it has 100% citations). 220.240.159.127 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm a bit biased (see my username) but preserved locomotives are a notable topic. See arguments above. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that the article gets moved to draftspace and can only be let back into the mainspace when the entire list is full of citations. (Meaning that it can only be in the mainspace after it has 100% citations). 220.240.159.127 (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the third person you responded with the same bit too. There is no reason to do that. You already stated this. And why not register a username? Dream Focus 05:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I did suggest delete, now I have struck that vote as I've changed my mind. But I would recommend draftify because it needs more citations to meet GNG for a standalone list. I’m leaning to delete or even draftifying it. 220.240.159.127 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 37 references already in the article. Deletion isn't cleanup. Any editing concerns you can discuss on the talk page. Dream Focus 20:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my comment again, I mentioned draftify, so I would suggest that the article gets moved to draftspace and can only be let back into the mainspace when the entire list is full of citations. (Meaning that it can only be in the mainspace after it has 100% citations). 220.240.159.127 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not how Wikipedia works. WP:NOTPERFECT Dream Focus 05:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THIS ISN'T A JOKE @Dream Focus. This is serious. This isn't a start-class article, nor a stub-class article. It's a list-class article.
Other lists like preserved Boeing aircraft meet the regulations because they have 100% citations. This one article on the other hand does not. 220.240.159.127 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are new to editing Wikipedia, so need to just stay out of AFDs until you understand things better. You also sound rather young. The notability of an article is not determined by its current state. Everyone else has said to keep it, you the only one arguing nonstop trying to delete/draft it. Nothing gained by that. Dream Focus 06:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or is it? 220.240.159.127 (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it's a valid topic and valuable for people doing encyclopedic research. While it can use some work, I think this is how we have grown over the years. Thanks!--Kevin Murray (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think notability is established through the sources in the article which clearly discuss preserved locomotives, but the article needs a bit of work. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats why I'm suggesting draftify 220.240.159.127 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a reason for draftification. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DreamFocus, Thryduulf and Kevin. Obviously the article can do with some extra referencing and stuff, but it's not that bad. S5A-0043Talk 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Mori[edit]

Joshua Mori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Rock Park, Indiana[edit]

Flat Rock Park, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the placenames book calls this a "village", but it is in fact a subdivision started in the early 1960s and then enlarged considerably sometime before the mid 1980s. All this I learned from maps and aerials; GHits are all either clickbait, gazetteers, or passing references. Just not a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That 1800's reference to Flat Rock Park is still bugging me though. So if there are any thoughts. I haven't found anything yet. The earliest mentions I found were 1957 realestate ads for the early lots in the housing development, and I can't find the GNIS source for this. Prior to 1957, It just Flat Rock township.James.folsom (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the source that GNIS used. The map doesn't show anything at the coords given in the article, and county history there doesn't mention it. If GNIS pick up the township as a town, they missed the coords by alot. https://mdon.library.pfw.edu/digital/collection/cc_fw_hist/id/6628/rec/8331 James.folsom (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A neighbourhood which fails GNG - it looks from historic maps like it was or is an unincorporated neighbourhood but is now clearly a part of Columbus, Indiana. There's nothing to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND, reliable source was cited in the article since 2014, when the article was created. The source, "From Needmore to Prosperity : Hoosier place names in folklore and history" was published in 1995, which long predates this article, identifies the location as "Flat Rock Park (Bartholomew). This village was named for Flat Rock Creek, now Flatrock River. A variant name is Flat Rock Park North. Cf. Flat Rock" . This book was published by the Indiana University Press, which I believe to be a credible source. RecycledPixels (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the issue: a source isn't "reliable" when it isn't correct. It's clear from the maps and aerials that it didn't exist at all until the late 1950s (a 1960 aerial shows the first houses built) and that it is a typical tract house development of the period, and not a village in the conventional sense. These place names books are of varying quality to begin with, but they also suffer from some of the same issues that GNIS has, brought on by sheer volume and the tendency to use default classifications when there isn't something specific. I'm willing to assume that they are accurate as to the naming, since after all that's their purpose. But I take their descriptions of the places with a grain of salt, especially when evidence on the ground is against them. It's possible there was some previous place at the same location with the same name, but that needs more proof than just inference from a place names listing. And we have held subdivisions to GNG levels of notability. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there was a prior place, I always make sure. I made extra sure on this one too, just because I knew that lame unsourced claim in that source attached to the article was going to get mentioned by somebody. I looked at alot of really old plats and that space was always empty until 1930 when a small housing cluster had been built. The newspapers for the area don't even mention the place until 1950s when the lots started going up for sale earnest. I just wish I could figure out what GNIS saw in that book that became a town. Because the maps in that book just show empty space there. I remember something I saw in the papers recently that made me think these population numbers in old gazetteers may be coming from tax records, and whatever system of naming the countryside for tax collection purposes is getting picked up as towns? James.folsom (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A Newspapers.com search returns over 3,200 hits for "Flat Rock Park" in Indiana. At first glance, most of these appear to be property addresses, and not anything of substance. From 1900 to 1950, there are 14 hits, mostly appearing to refer to places in other counties. BD2412 T 22:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you narrow it down to only the county it's 3160, There are alot more real estate ads than you'd expect. Random sampling of that seems to show 50 years of passing news mentions and home sales in the subdivision. It's been quiet since around 2000 though. James.folsom (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

FictionBook[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
FictionBook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only article I could find that might establish notability was this one. As the article currently stands, one article is written by the author of the specification, and the other is a mention in a list. Perhaps there's some sources in Russian that could establish notability, but I couldn't find any. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently, this has been nominated for deletion for and the result was to keep it. The Russian version might have some sources that could be used here, but it's been 12 years and I'm surprised that none of it has been brought over to the English Wikipedia. Either way, I think I'm going to withdraw this nomination. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Writer[edit]

Question Writer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article reads like a documentation page. There are no sources in the article that establish its notability, and I can't find anything that would establish notability on Google either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Legality of the Iraq War. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq[edit]

Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unbalanced POVFORK. Article isn’t written that well either. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Piotrus. S5A-0043Talk 11:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested seems fine, this is basically covered in existing articles and has been debated more than enough over the last 20 yrs to cover all points in one article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Legality of the Iraq War per Piotrus and Oaktree b. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramnik Mathur[edit]

Ramnik Mathur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; low-citation publications do not satisfy WP:NPROF. ~ A412 talk! 01:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Gagauz people. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gagauz people in Moldova[edit]

Gagauz people in Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Gagauz people in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary pages. Most Gagauz people live in Moldova, except for five Gagauz-majority villages in Ukraine. Gagauz people in Moldova is basically a duplicate of Gagauz people with basically the same scope while Gagauz people in Ukraine is an article dealing with five villages with a very narrow scope and which can be perfectly integrated into its parent article. Therefore I propose that both articles be deleted and their information merged into Gagauz people. Super Ψ Dro 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no ethnographic or linguistic features separating the Gagauz in Moldova from the Gagauz in Ukraine. All Gagauz people in Ukraine can ever deal with are census statistics and local politics of the Gagauz which actually do not exist as they do not have any party of their own, or the five villages' history which can be dealt with in their own articles, or the history of how the Gagauz got divided which can easily be explained in the parent article, or notable personalities which are currently a total of four in Ukrainian Wikipedia. I simply don't see a need for a separate article, everything it covers or can cover can be integrated into another article. Super Ψ Dro 21:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, it’s a small article, but why delete it? There is no need.
Youprayteas (t • c) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a need for the article? Is there any information we cannot cover anywhere else? I've just argued for the opposite view. Super Ψ Dro 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I think a redirect/merger would be good too. The resulting redirects would be inoffensive. Super Ψ Dro 19:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both. While the majority of Gagauz in the present live in Moldova, they historically lived further east, in Bessarabia. A Gagauz people article rightly summarizes a totality of secondary-source-covered aspects of the topic, including their history before becoming an ethnic group in Moldova, whereas Gagauz people in Moldova and Gagauz people in Ukraine are discrete subtopics of the main topic that can bear more detail about Gagauz specifically in Moldova (irrespective of wherever else they are or have been) or specifically in Ukraine. I think the comparison to like creating an article like Moldovans in Moldova, ridiculous doesn't quite hold. As an alternative comparison, New York City is the location of the densest population of Jews in the United States, but that doesn't mean Jews in New York City should be merged with American Jews. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By percentage, not by population. I don't know exactly, but I can confidently say that below 50% of Jews live in New York, while most likely, overwhelmingly, Gagauzians live in Moldova (I would guess for about 80%). Youprayteas talk/contribs 17:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The comments made during this discussion raise general red flags for me as to the proposal to delete the ethnic group article as being redundant to the national group. If this passes GNG, merge targets can be discussed at the article talk page since no clear merge target has been proposed in this discussion. Ben Azura (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please re-read the nomination and review the vote. The suggestion was not to delete the ethnic group. Instead, the nominator suggested merging the national divisions into the ethnic group. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for merging Gagauz people in Moldova to Gagauz people: it is difficult distinguish between the two topics (i.e. content of the two articles would be largely redundant). There is also the article Gagauzia which is more focused on the political issues within Moldova, and which also reduces the usefulness of a separate article for Moldovan Gagauz. Weak support for merging Gagauz people in Ukraine to Gagauz people. It seems possible that the Gagauz in Ukraine would have their own political issues. But for now, all the content in the article can easily be included as a section in Gagauz people. If the section expands, it can be WP:split off again. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one into the other, because right now, we have a fork. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still divided between Delete, Keep and Merge to Gagauz people.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gagauz people. Highly overlapping. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Gagauz people: Merge both to Gagauz people since both are overlapping and it's redundant and unnecessary to keep both the specific articles separate. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - given the content of the respective pages, this feels the best ATD given that I don't think these need exist on their own, given the reasoning above. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 18:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to AMSAT#AMSAT organizations worldwide. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KiwiSAT[edit]

KiwiSAT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately this satellite never actually launched. The only coverage is a routine mentions of the intent to build the thing. I can't find anything on Google. A sad footnote, but a non-notable one. BrigadierG (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to AMSAT#AMSAT organizations worldwide, using an anchor to a new list element AMSAT-ZL. That can mention the satelite and its history in a sentence or two. In searching for sources, I find the unrelated Kiwisat service (satellite TV subscription service), but nothing independent of AMSAT-ZL.Klbrain (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the deletion. KiwiSAT's website indicates that it will never launch and AMSAT-ZL was dissolved. It would be great if its history could be captured as suggested after the deletion. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Ke Siyape[edit]

Shaadi Ke Siyape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2019 DonaldD23 talk to me 00:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional App Challenge[edit]

Congressional App Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage of this event as a whole, only primary sources from the event's website, so I don't think it's notable enough for Wikipedia. It's a series of local/state competitions for middle/high-schoolers in the US, under the umbrella of the US congress. There's of course going to be lots of local coverage of students who win the competition for their state/district, but that's not going to cut it here. I couldn't find anything in The New York Times or NPR about this competition, and if it was truly nationally significant you would think these news organisations would cover it. I just removed a huge chunk of the article listing state/district winners per massive BLP and promotional concerns, per this talk page thread; the fact that I had to do that, along with the relative lack of mainspace links to the page, doesn't help matters either. Neither does the fact that the article was created by a single-purpose account which has only made edits about the article subject. Graham87 (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Nha Trang building fire[edit]

2023 Nha Trang building fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No lasting coverage to have an WP:EFFECT. All the coverage sourced is from June 2023. Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Chris Stead#Grab It Indie Games Magazine. ✗plicit 00:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grab It Indie Games Magazine[edit]

Grab It Indie Games Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability, merge with Chris Stead? IgelRM (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in Austria. ✗plicit 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Vienna[edit]

Embassy of Colombia, Vienna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

3 of the sources are primary and another is google maps. Lacking third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_6&oldid=1213752216"